SammuleRobberts

Welcome!

Hello, SammuleRobberts, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{help me}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Your recent editing history at London shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ark of the Covenant

Why are you defending this edit which is nothing more than promotion of someones's website? I'm puzzled why someone who hasn't edited in more than a year, and who has only made a handful of edits, would suddenly take up this cause.- MrX 03:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

What has you puzzled, is irrelevant. Isnt it? Im not here to unpuzzle you, thats your own task. Your ignoring the information, and attacking something someone else is doing for no reason. This is about the information.. did you lose your self somewhere along the line? This is about information. The link, is linked to information. Did you read the information that it was linked to? This is what the talk page is for, discussing information, not your power trip, or my politics. The information bears a significant enhancement to this collection, specifically this particular article. No one else even bothered to figure out what the Ark of the covenant even is, and this fellow has created one, and deciphered an important portion of Exodus. Back on topic fella, and never mind about me. Mind the relevance of the information. You have just demonstrated, you have no objective understanding of relevance, by focusing on me, instead of the information being attached to this article.

I could ask you why you are defending keeping new information out of this article.. but its irrelevant, and we would then both be off topic.

Anything to add about this INFORMATION friend? If not, let it pass.

--SammuleRobberts (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I spoke to this fellow by email earlier to ask if he could substantiate the claim he made on his website about his invitation to work with discovery channel, and he sent me the email from the producer. He sent me the full email, but I will reprint with confidential information redacted. If you feel the need to get in touch with this producer to see if Discovery channel was truly interested in reproducing his work, by all means, go through regular channels, Im sure she is not too hard to get a hold of to verify this aspect. As far as Im concerned, I read the book this article was reprinted in, its also available in its entirety on the page attached to the links. It's called: Unfolding the Labyrinth: Open Problems in Physics, Mathematics, Astrophysics and other Areas of Science, ISBN-10: 1599730138 .

If this guy is a faker.. he certainly has the wool pulled over some pretty smart peoples eyes. I feel this is confirmation enough of the validity of this information. Not only this evidence, the information in the pages its self is quite compelling. What he says, makes perfect sense if one cares to read it. He has approached this topic from two angles, philosophical, and scientific, and disclosed some amazing compelling information. If this was merely a website link spam.. he has 50 different topics to choose from on his website other than this precise topic. This is not spam, of any sort.

Here is the email from Discovery Channel he forwarded to me earlier this evening:

---

Original Message --------

Subject: History Channel program From: Kristina Djokic <kristina.djokic@XXXXXX.com> Date: Fri, November 08, 2013 11:09 am To: XXXXXXXXXXX Hello. I'm producing a program for History Channel's H2 network and wanted to touch-base with you on your work regarding the Ark of the Covenant as a misunderstood electrical device. I'm working on a tight deadline, so if you have the chance can you please give me a call at (323) 7XX-XXXX. -- Best regards, Kristina Djokic

--SammuleRobberts (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or a vehicle for promotion. See WP:NOT. All information must be reliably published - see WP:RS. Yours isn't. Doug Weller talk 05:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

So, what your saying, is your not a fan of original thought? Every thought has its origin somewhere. As for promotion, look at each of the other links to each of the other articles. What your saying is entirely invalid, either that, or your saying that each of those links sends the reader to unoriginal thought, and does not promote any other author, article, philosophy, religion, scientific discovery etc. This is blatantly untrue, each of the sources is from an original thought. Each of the links promotes something and or someone. Even Exodus was written from an original thought at one time. Its not like this fellow just showed up here last week. The mathematician who re-published his original article did so in 2006.

As for reliably published, I have already given sources that says that it certainly was, and by reliable people. Florentin Smarandache seems quite reputable if you ask me. His book that contains the article linked to the page is here : in the archives of the Cornell University. Florentin Smarandache seems reliable and noteworthy to me. . I think, if your credentials do not out rank his credentials, then you don't really have an argument in this matter. Since your earlier remark about original thought and promotion pretty mush sums up your personal limitations in this matter, and demonstrates your extreme and uncalled for bias.. you should leave the original thought to the authors, and stop trying to invent excuses for poor judgement. Did you ever build the ark of the covenant in your garage? I would say Doug, your weller out of your depth. Just because you don't like what the article says, does not give you the authority to disregard someone's well documented articles on this precise topic. Your remark about reliably published has also been exposed as false by the above links. You just don't have a valid argument Doug, not one.

I say thumbs up to original thought, and thumbs down to subjective biased opinions. Please be more descriptive if you intend to be disruptive. You might just as well have said "I dont like it".

--SammuleRobberts (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

One of the things we expect from editors is that they assume good faith (=WP:AGF, not insult other editors. I love original thought, but Wikipedia policy forbids it. We don't use email as a source. If you think something is reliably published and others disagree, you can challenge that at WP:RSN saying what source you want to use and specifically how you want to use it. Read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY first. I'm not clear why you've skipped from using Adrien Stone to Smarandache, who teaches at a 2 year community college at the Gallup campus of the University of New Mexico. Again, I'm arguing Wikipedia policy and guidelines, you are either ignoring them or don't want to follow them. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Doug is correct. We have policies and guidelines that have formed through years of discussions leading to broad consensus. Please take the time to learn them. Then if you disagree with them, you can lobby to change them by participating in discussion on the policy talk pages. What you can't do is ignore the policies, no matter how right you think you are. I did read some of the content linked in the article, and I find it to be nonsensical and typical of many other new age websites. For example "...reveals the secret of our enslavement", "...illustrate new ways of using logic", "A granite quartz slab has a resonating effect", "Is it a telephone to God? Yes, it sure is. Its also a teleporter, it will take you right to God... So, what did God say to me? Nothing specific, it was laughing, and laughing, and laughing....", "The Ark of the covenant is two things. An ancient piece of ancient technology..., and a metaphor for who and what we have the potential to become." I think I speak for most active participants here: This is not content that is wanted in a serious article on Wikipedia.- MrX 15:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you think you speak for others, but you dont. Each speaks for themselves, or not at all. If your point is valid, why try to puff it up with non-present imaginary concensus? Scratch that comment, its nonsensical. As for typical new age website, I would say its not. This is not a collection of blinky gifs, hoekey crystal powers, and affiliate garbage links. There are no ads at all on the site, and his book is free. I have not skipped from Adrien Stone to Smarandache, who you seem to think your smarter than (egomaniacle is difficult to communicate with from any level other than its own), Smarandache has also published the same article in his book, if you were following along. This article is among the links on the page. Ithink we should just rip this all apart then, and begin all over again, and scrutinize each and every single link and resource listed, fortraces of original thought. Those who dont participate.. have NO VOICE. So dont try to bring them in, like you have elected yourself to speak upon their behalf (again, egomaniacle). If you feel your being insulted, your just insulting yourself by speaking from a pure egomaniaclepower tripping perspective. Godforbid, anyone else calls you on it. You want to censor anything that slightly displeases you, but you just cant run from your own condition.

You operate in a lower sphere of awareness. Of course the truth seems nonsensical, and mathamatician geniuses seem beneath you. You have found a corner in which you can push around some text, and feel whole. Dont think the truth is an insult, its a fact, not original thought, and I can prove it by illuminating your double standard in this matter. I dont expect you to agree with me, so.. lets rip apart every single link within this article, and remove any and all traces of original thought, commercial promotion, or philosophical speculation. When we are done that.. we will focus on your own pet articles in which you contribute, and re examine every single thing in the same light in which you cast this matter. Judge not, lest you be judged. So.. lets look at everything contributing to this article, and every article in which you personally contribute. The reason being, is I intend to demonstrate unequivocally, that you are both preaching a double standard, acting like hypocrates, and bullying anything you have a personal distate for.. which is none other than FORBIDDEN ORIGINAL THOUGHT mannifest through your own subjective lenses.

Lets learn something right here and now then. I wouldnt call each of you a hypocrate unless I can demonstrate it 10 ways from Sunday. Doing so would just be uncalled for. Im tired of your hypocracy wiki-clique. You think you can just tinkle on anything you like with your twinkle. Fine. Shall I begin by challenging the content within this article that apparently violates the imaginary concensus for the same reasons you put forth and nominate its exclusion as well? Or shall we just begin by having a closer look at your own personal pet articles and expose and challenge your bias there on a more personal level? How best would you like me to demonstrate my point, that I may defend mine? Or would you rather spend your energies on someone who doesnt push back?

You think you speak for most active participants.. really, if they were active, and participants, they would speak for themselves. You just contradicted yourself twice in such a small phrase, I have never seen that done before with such precision. An oxymoron, a pleonasm, and tautology used all together in such a small sentence wrapped within the appearance of an acceptible concept. I can see you know not what you say. I can help you by pointing it out, in case anyone missed it. I can point it out through everything you say and do infact. Old people call it simply, being contrary. I think your brand ofcontrary has no place among archives or literature. It's just not literate. Dont assume literacy based upon access to spellcheck. You need to be able to think clearly and without bias to be able to communicate intelligently. Dont think you have no use elsewhere though, I recommend the study of LAW. Its where they take perfectly ordinary english words, redefine them, then mix these words with normal english words in order to conceal the true context and intention behind their language, and mix spheres of context and truth until there is nothing more than gibberish, which they get paid by the hour to dispense. How much do you get paid to do it here? --SammuleRobberts (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Ark of the Covenant has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Please read WP:VANDALISM, reverting you was not vandalism. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You are also continuing to make personal attacks and you are WP:Editwarring. You've been reverted by 3 editors. Continue and I or someone else will report you to WP:ANI. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The other two editors did not have a valid reason for removing these links. They discontinued the conversation. You have not presented a valid reason either. This is ope so people can contribute. Not so you can try to bully people around and try to dominate and monopolize the information presented here.

As for personal attacks, I have merely added the links where they go. You are lying. Anyone can see you are clearly biased, and inventing excuses. Saying something that is untrue.. is lying. Is it a personal attack to point it out? In your mind probably.

If these links are not valid, state the reasons. If you dont have a reason, like the others, then leave the page alone. If these links are not valid, state clearly all the reasons, and lets go over the entire page based upon your own criteria. Then lets look at all of your other contributions in this site, based upon your own criteria, and examine your own contributions. We will spend the next days doing this.

SammuleRobberts (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent personal attacks, edit warring, and unreasonableness. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 19:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for block evasion, as you did at Ark of the Covenant. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 18:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Not here to contribute to the encyclopedia

In view of the malicious type of block evasion you've been doing, I've changed my mind about those piddling little blocks. Bishonen | talk 19:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC).

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 19:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)